Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 37731 

• What financing tools facilitate 

access to capital for small meat and 

poultry processing companies? In your 

response, please consider the stage of 

corporate development (e.g., startup, 

onsite expansion, restarting an idled 

facility, new location), the potential use 

of funds (e.g., working capital, 

construction, credit lines, equipment), 

and the type of financing (e.g., grants, 

installment loans, balloon payment 

loans, equity like investments). Please 

also consider the prospective borrowers’ 

type of business model (e.g., 

cooperative, farmer joint-ownership, 

employee-ownership, mobile meat- and 

poultry processing operations). 

• What financing tools facilitate 

provision of capital by lenders who 

finance meat and poultry processors? In 

your response, please consider the type 

of lender (e.g., bank, credit union, loan 

fund) and the type of tool (e.g., loan 

guarantee, direct loan, debt to establish 

a revolving loan fund, grant to establish 

a revolving loan fund). 

• What are the barriers or challenges 

to financing tools (e.g., gap between 

local lender expertise to support meat 

and poultry processing and the need for 

processing capacity), and are there 

changes that can be made to existing 

programs to mitigate these challenges? 

• What type of upstream analysis of 

customers/product demand is needed to 

justify the level of lending or financial 

support? 

• What barriers, if any, exist that 

reduce the ability of meat and poultry 

processor lenders to extend their 

geography? 

• What barriers, if any, exist that 

reduce the ability of meat and poultry 

processor lenders to provide capital for 

multiple types of meat and poultry 

processors (e.g., different meats and 

poultry, different size processors, 

cooperatives, tribally owned or tribally 

affiliated operation)? 

• What barriers, if any, exist that 

reduce access to capital for very small 

and small meat and poultry processors? 

In your response, consider collateral, 

capital, capacity, and other factors. 

• What are the most pressing needs of 

the meat and poultry processing sector 

with regard to financing, and what 

action should USDA take in the 

immediate term to improve access to 

capital for small and very small meat 

and poultry processors? 

• What types of technical assistance 

or capacity building support would be 

useful to lenders interested in starting or 

expanding their meat and poultry 

processing lending? 

• What types of technical assistance 

or capacity-building support would be 

useful to lenders interested in starting or 

expanding lending to tribally owned or 

affiliated meat and poultry processing 

operations? 

• What types of technical assistance 

or capacity building support would be 

useful to lenders interested in starting or 

expanding lending to meat and poultry 

processing cooperatives? 

• How could federal funds be best 

leveraged with state and local resources 

(matching funds, in-kind support, 

government assistance)? 

4. Grant Considerations 

• Would a small plant expansion 

program structured similarly to USDA’s 

Meat and Poultry Inspection Readiness 

Grant (MPIRG), but with a focus on 

expanding slaughter and processing 

capacity for small federally inspected 

plants, be beneficial? If so, at what 

award ($) level per grant and for what 

types of costs? 

• What types of planning grants are 

necessary that are not already covered 

by an existing USDA grant or other 

financial assistance program? What 

other federal programs could finance or 

have funded processing efforts and with 

which USDA could partner? Are 

sufficient grants available now for 

business planning for new ventures, or 

is that a gap that needs to be filled? 

• Are grant funds (or other funds) 

needed for marketing or outreach 

activities, including recruiting new 

participants in the industry? 

• Would pilot grants that provide 

awards to small plants for training and 

other support (e.g., cover wage gap 

during apprenticeships) to develop their 

local workforce be effective to address 

some of the labor challenges associated 

with operating a current, expanded, or 

new facility? 

5. Technical Assistance Considerations 

• What are the top priorities for 

technical assistance that would facilitate 

processing expansion or increased 

capacity (e.g., butchery for key markets, 

HACCP, humane handling best practices 

for plant operators, labeling approval 

and processes, brand and market 

development)? 

• Would regional or local cooperative 

agreements with strategic partners be 

the best way to provide this type of 

assistance, or are alternative ways 

preferable and more effective? 

• In what ways could technical 

assistance support best be deployed to 

enhance competition and address 

challenges in the marketplace, how is it 

best delivered, and by whom? 

• What workforce-related technical 

assistance is most needed, how is it best 

delivered, and by whom (e.g., best 

industry practices, training on 

equipment, new tools for safety)? 

6. Partnerships and Combined Funding 

Considerations 

• Who can USDA partner with to best 

leverage the federal funds (e.g., State 

and local governments, private 

investors, philanthropic organizations)? 

• Should loans and grants be 

combined to support these facilities? If 

so, what criteria should be used to 

determine what portion of the funds are 

offered as loans versus grants? 

• What conditions should be placed 

on grants or loans? If those conditions 

are not met, should the grants require 

repayment? If the conditions are met, 

should the loan be forgivable? 

In coordination with this public 

comment process, USDA anticipates 

hosting a series of stakeholder meetings 

to learn more about existing plants that 

could serve as a model for other regions; 

identify plants that are looking to 

expand; identify strategies to overcome 

barriers to building new, maintaining, or 

expanding existing processing facilities; 

scope out financial needs to expand 

processing capacity; scope out the 

workforce challenges, including safety 

considerations, and needs for research, 

innovation, and investment to address 

workforce and workplace issues; and 

understand the non-financial barriers 

that USDA can break down to expand 

this sector. 

Mae Wu, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15145 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Agriculture has 

submitted the following information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments are 

requested regarding: Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
37732 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments regarding this information 

collection received by August 16, 2021 

will be considered. Written comments 

and recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice on the 

following website www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number and the agency informs 

potential persons who are to respond to 

the collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Rural Housing Service 

Title: 7 CFR 3550—Direct Single 

Family Housing Loan and Grant 

Program, HB–1–3550, HB–2–3550. 

OMB Control Number: 0575–0172. 

Summary of Collection: USDA Rural 

Development (RD) is committed to 

helping improve the economy and 

quality of life in rural America. RD’s 

Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) 

offers a variety of programs to build or 

improve housing and essential 

community facilities in rural areas. The 

Housing Act of 1949 provides the 

authority for the RHS’ direct single 

family housing loan and grant programs. 

The programs provide eligible 

applicants with financial assistance to 

own adequate but modest homes in 

rural areas. 7 CFR part 3550 sets forth 

the programs’ policies and the 

programs’ procedures can be found in 

its accompanying handbooks 

(Handbook–1–3550 and Handbook–2– 

3550). To originate and service direct 

loans and grants that comply with the 

programs’ statute, policies, and 

procedures, RHS must collect 

information from low- and very lowincome applicants, third parties 

associated with or working on behalf of 

the applicants, borrowers, and third 

parties associated with or working on 

behalf of the borrowers. RHS will collect 

information using several forms. 

Need and Use of the Information: 

RHS will collect information to verify 

program eligibility requirements; 

continued eligibility requirements for 

borrower assistance; servicing of loans; 

eligibility for special servicing 

assistance such as: Payment subsidies, 

moratorium (stop) on payments, 

delinquency workout agreements; 

liquidation of loans; and, debt 

settlement. The information is used to 

ensure that the direct Single Family 

Housing Programs are administered in a 

manner consistent with legislative and 

administrative requirements. Without 

the information RHS would be unable to 

determine if a borrower would qualify 

for services or if assistance has been 

granted to which the customer would 

not be eligible under current regulations 

and statutes. 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals or households; Business or 

other for-profit; Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Number of Respondents: 106,300. 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

On occasion; Annually. 

Total Burden Hours: 284,013. 

Title: Rural Community Development 

Initiative (RCDI). 

OMB Control Number: 0575–0180. 

Summary of Collection: Congress first 

authorized the Rural Community 

Development Initiative (RCDI) in 1999 

with an appropriation of $6 million 

under the Rural Community 

Advancement Program (Pub. L. 106–78, 

which was amended by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 

(Pub. L. 114–113)). The Community 

Facilities Division under the Rural 

Housing Service (RHS) administers this 

grant program. The intent of the RCDI 

grant program is to develop the capacity 

and ability of rural area recipients to 

undertake projects through a program of 

financial and technical assistance 

provided by qualified intermediary 

organizations. Intermediaries may be 

private or public (including tribal) 

organizations. Intermediaries are 

required to provide matching funds in 

an amount equal to the RCDI grant. 

Eligible recipients are nonprofit 

organizations, low-income rural 

communities, or federally recognized 

tribes. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

information will be collected from 

applicants (intermediary organizations 

applying for the grant), grantees 

(intermediary organizations that are 

awarded the grant), recipients (entities 

that receive assistance from the 

intermediary), and beneficiaries (entities 

or individuals that benefit from 

assistance provided by the recipient) by 

RHS staff in the National Office and 

Rural Development field offices. This 

information is used to determine 

applicant and recipient eligibility, 

project feasibility, and to ensure that 

grantees operate on a sound basis and 

use grant funds for authorized purposes. 

The Notice of Solicitation of 

Applications (NOSA), published in the 

Federal Register, provides instructions 

for completing an application. 

Description of Respondents: Not-for 

profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal 

Government. 

Number of Respondents: 90. 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

Quarterly; Annually; Third party 

disclosure. 

Total Burden Hours: 4,194. 

Levi S. Harrell, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15117 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2021–0021] 

Notice of Availability of an 

Environmental Assessment for 

Release of Ganaspis brasiliensis for 

Biological Control of Spotted-Wing 

Drosophila in the Continental United 

States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service has prepared an 

environmental assessment relative to 

permitting the release of the insect 

Ganaspis brasiliensis for the biological 

control of spotted-wing Drosophila 

(Drosophila suzukii) in the continental 

United States. Based on the 

environmental assessment and other 

relevant data, we have reached a 

preliminary determination that the 

release of this control agent within the 

continental United States will not have 

a significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. We are making the 

environmental assessment available to 

the public for review and comment. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before August 16, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS– 

2021–0021 in the Search field. Select 

the Documents tab, then select the 

Comment button in the list of 

documents. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES